According to a new study conducted by the New York City Department of Consumer Affairs, "on average, women pay approximately 7 percent more than men for similar products". Thoughts on this?

roharareddit · 2015-12-24T15:37:42+00:00

I have a degree in Economics and in the very first week of ECON 101 we were introduced to the concepts of Marginal Propensity to Consume (MPC) and Marginal Propensity to Save (MPS).

The very first thing the instructor did when talking about MPC was to demonstrate that it differs between different groups of people and that the most stark difference you will find is that which exists between men and women.

Reaching into his back pocket he whiped out a comb.

"I payed 75 cents for this hair comb." He said. "Ladies, would any of you like to use it?"

The class burst out in a chorus of, mostly female, laughter. He went on to explain that for every extra dollar a woman earns, or simply has in her pocket, she will spend more of that dollar than a man will. He also pointed out that women will spend more money on the same product than men will, the hair comb being a great example (note in the above mentioned study that personal care products had the highest markup for women) because a woman's hair comb costs much more even though it is virtualy the exact same thing. You could say the same for many products.

I believe the reason for this is simple. Women, in large part, have access to money that someone else earns for them; money coming from Dad, Husband, Ex Husband through alimony, child support etc. and the state. Therefore, they will be much more likely to spend that extra dollar than a man would.

This is one of the main driving forces behind feminism and the enslavement of men through child support, alimony and tax dollars earmarked for women's needs. Women are the "cash cows" of the economy as Manwomanmyth stated in one of his videos.

What you are observing when you see a gap in the MPC isn't oppression of women, but rather a signal of privilege.

Mens-Advocate · 2015-12-24T16:56:38+00:00

The danger here is that, once again, feminist society will over-ride economics to achieve equality of result.

A close examination of the study may reveal it full of flaws; however, even if its conclusion is correct, the laws of economics mean any difference is caused by consumer behaviour, not by discrimination.

Nevertheless, there are already dozens of Google references, creating pressure for a "solution" - external regulation as was done to equalize women's health insurance rates and male-female tennis pots. (Needless to say, men's auto insurance rates and male-female modeling rates were not artificially equalized.)

Men are about to get screwed again.

Lethn · 2015-12-24T15:28:50+00:00

The people who complain about this shit are idiots who don't check the prices of things before they buy them, I also suspect that one of the reasons behind this is boys don't normally purchase these sorts of things which will be why the prices are lower as there just isn't a demand for them.

But that would be assuming any of these people talking about this stuff would know anything about economics.

CrazyInAnInsaneWorld · 2015-12-24T17:45:39+00:00

I would like to see specifics on the study, such as sample size (the value of n where n equals the number of participants/products surveyed), the types of products analyzed (AKA Did they just look at a bunch of things more expensive for women like health insurance, or did they balance out the women's expensive products with products typically more expensive for men, such as car insurance?), etc. But just going by the wording of the study's allegation, I can already see a big problem...

Women pay...

Retailers charge...

Note that despite both phrases describing the same act of a financial transaction taking place, the subject of the operation being stated as having taken place is different. That's important, especially when you're talking about a statement where you are assigning culpability for something. The first phrase specifically chooses to describe a woman choosing to hand over her money, in exchange for a product, good, or service, the price for that item or service being irrelevant due to the nature of already having decided to make the transaction. The latter describes the storefront's surrender of a good or product in exchange for payment.

Therefore, by the phrasing of the study's assertion, the women that pay approx. 7 percent more for a product than men do, have simply decided that for whatever reason, the convenience of getting an item now and paying more for the item, rather than looking for it for a lower price elsewhere, or even using the cheaper male's version of it (which is often as simple as a color changed product of similar utility and use), trumps whatever inconvenience they face due to paying more for it. The phrasing is not "On average, retailers charge approximately 7 percent more for women's products than men's..." which would assign moral culpability to the retailers, as well as imply that women don;t have a choice but to pay more, simply due to their gender; it simply states "On average, women pay approximately 7 percent more..."

This phrasing places moral culpability for paying more squarely with the customer who chooses to pay more for a product, rather than buy it on Amazon for warehouse prices, spend time looking for a different, lower price, or any of a myriad of choices open to the customer than simply buying an (allegedly) overpriced product of their own free will, then turning around and blaming others for that choice.

That's what seems at the heart of this complaint, as seems to be so many in this gynocentric society...blaming others for the actions and choices of women. Always with the lack of agency, it seems. "Women must be protected from the consequences of their choices, because they are frail and fragile. But don't you dare imply that we aren't just as capable and strong as you strapping, strong men because of all the bar-lowering we insist you enact for us. That's sexist!"

Rome is starting to look more pleasant burning down, every single day...

TL;DR - Just more women blaming men/society for the consequences of their choices and outcomes of their actions.

M4Strings · 2015-12-24T16:34:17+00:00

So then the takeaway from this is that it's easier to trick women into spending more if they take the basic product and modify it a bit. Welcome to the world of marketing for the past several decades.

2015-12-24T22:44:26+00:00

Feminizing a product makes it, in the eyes of some women, a premium product that they are willing to pay more for. If women didn't have an inflated sense of being better I don't think the market would bear higher prices.

azazelcrowley · 2015-12-24T15:54:24+00:00

Because women tend to care about status more than men do and judge people based on status more, including each other.

Which also causes their contempt and lack of empathy for low status men.

Think of it like upper class snobbery and you'll see why women pay more for shit.

Some women get this out of their system when they have to raise a family on a low income. Some don't and their children's quality of life suffers for it. Some never get it out of their system. Some never had it in the first place. But as the stats show, it's common enough to be statistically significant.

It can't reasonably be blamed on men, but feminists will try anyway to attribute this to the patriarchy and whine and demand society fix womens problems for them, even when they result from womens own choices and behavior.

Certainly, they won't like the idea of women being told "Maybe you should be less shallow and obsessed with status.", despite being happy to tell men not to be so shallow and obsessed with looks. (Something almost all of us here agree with anyway.)

The difference here is, womens particular vice costs them money across the board. Ours just costs us time with boring and vapid women who haven't developed a personality, and possibly divorce and child custody payments.

But as we know, some men avoid such women, and some women are more practical minded and will make purchases based on utility and cost.

Mostly though? Nope.

Mens-Advocate · 2015-12-24T21:28:00+00:00

Excellent comment at http://fyre.it/Bs8avE.4:

News story! Women suffer more in some way! Too much air conditioning in office buildings! Also, 100 studies show that nobody cares about women! In the meantime, children die in Africa to produce blood diamonds bought by men in the west to give to women so the women can impress each other with how affluent their provider is.

Natalant · 2015-12-25T00:14:11+00:00

How similar? Within a 7% margin perhaps...

DavidByron2 · 2015-12-25T00:49:20+00:00

I bet the study is full of crap, but in case it isn't the obvious solution is for women to -- you know -- not buy that expensive crap. of course the feminist narrative somehow hints that women are just FORCED to do it, like the way they made everyone pretend prostitutes are forced to work ("human trafficking").

Mens-Advocate · 2015-12-25T13:00:13+00:00

Let's hope economists (such as Sowell) debunk the "studies" before the situation goes further.

Thus far, thousands of Google references cite the DCA "study" as gospel truth, while only one (by AEI scholar/professor Mark Perry) contests it:

https://www.aei.org/publication/nyc-study-finds-some-evidence-of-gender-price-differences-but-it-certainly-isnt-systematic-or-widespread/

Comments